Is there something missing from the thread title?
ownership apostrophy?
Juddian:
Is there something missing from the thread title?
ownership apostrophy?
You pedantic cantankerous git!
Keep it up! 
Juddian:
Is there something missing from the thread title?
ownership apostrophy?
It should be Cities actually,Farquahr 
Maybe you should all have applied your elequent use of grammar and punctuation on warning stickers on the back of LGVs
Instead of the industry having egg on their face and now have to remove the badly worded order, and comply with a more agreeable one.
Sir +:
Juddian:
Is there something missing from the thread title?
ownership apostrophy?It should be Cities actually,Farquahr
Well yes if the ■■■■■■ addict meant a number of cities, i just wondered if the forum software had cut part of the title off if it was too long, and too long is part of ■■■■■■’s (ownership apostrophe) remit after all, hence Chester with the smug grin (well smirk then) and the other two chaps usually accompanying him in his portrait not so sure of themselves.
As an aside, i always understood apostrophe to be the correct spelling, but have seen apostrophy many times too.
Difficult to be sure now so many Americanisms and versions of spelling have crept in, which is the good old English spelling please chaps?
Ah yes a more agreeable request instead of an order, is ‘‘i showed them’’ to be carved onto gravestones of the in the right but dead in future?
It only goes to prove you cannot, no matter how much you try, educate cabbages.
More concerned about a bit of wording than the lives and limbs a sensible prominent sign might save…the sign deemed aggressive or something? well thats bloody spot on then, because 3/4/6 axles turning a corner are pretty bloody aggressive too if you happen to put yourself in their way.
chester:
Maybe you should all have applied your elequent use of grammar and punctuation on warning stickers on the back of LGVs
Instead of the industry having egg on their face and now have to remove the badly worded order, and comply with a more agreeable one.
chester:
Maybe you should all have applied your elequent use of grammar and punctuation on warning stickers on the back of LGVs
You do realise its highly unlikely anyone from this site had a say in the wording of these stickers?
chester:
The madness of 'stay back cyclist' stickers | Cycling | The Guardian
Well considering the guy who wrote that article included this phrase
“the word choice implicitly places the responsibility for safety on the cyclist, not the driver.”
then im not going pay too much attention to it since its been written by someone who has the “not my responsibility, im the vulnerable one” mentality
The whole article is biased and it says a lot about anyone who reads this and believes it without looking at a more balanced view for a two sided perspective
chester:
Carryfast:
Blimey I thought roaduser was thick.Here’s a clue.The ‘stay back’ sign is on the ‘rear’ of the vehicle and obviously instructing any cyclist who’s planning on undertaking a potentially turning truck in contravention of rule 167 of the highway code.By definition the ‘cyclist’ obviously being ‘behind’ the ‘truck’ at that point which makes it a bit difficult for the ‘truck’ to stay ‘behind’ the ‘cyclist’ in that case.
Such a great success it was, that operators have been told to remove them.
Not remove but soften a little due to the logic of cyclists in that when told not to do something they will go out of their way to do it. I.e. Red lights, zebra crossings, situations with a high risk of death, generally getting on everyone else’s nerves.
Course the onus will always be on drivers not to endanger cyclists or go for that stupid overtake when traffics coming to a stop 100yards ahead and in busy traffic cyclists have the speed advantage.
The-Snowman:
You do realise its highly unlikely anyone from this site had a say in the wording of these stickers?
Of course, that’s why I suggested maybe you all should have had a input.
chester:
Maybe you should all have applied your elequent use of grammar …
eloquent 
chester:
The-Snowman:
You do realise its highly unlikely anyone from this site had a say in the wording of these stickers?Of course, that’s why I suggested maybe you all should have had a input.
Please, please please, do tell us how we would do that? 
chester:
The-Snowman:
You do realise its highly unlikely anyone from this site had a say in the wording of these stickers?Of course, that’s why I suggested maybe you all should have had a input.
Now that is something we could agree on, if the powers that be governing many industries actually listened to the people at the coal face, as it were instead of liking the sound of their own voices, we wouldn’t have so many dumbed down and dying industries.
Unfortunately no bugger ever asks people who do the job or use the equipment, they prefer to listen to experts (of which there are legion) and people who sell the product.
chester:
Carryfast:
Blimey I thought roaduser was thick.Here’s a clue.The ‘stay back’ sign is on the ‘rear’ of the vehicle and obviously instructing any cyclist who’s planning on undertaking a potentially turning truck in contravention of rule 167 of the highway code.By definition the ‘cyclist’ obviously being ‘behind’ the ‘truck’ at that point which makes it a bit difficult for the ‘truck’ to stay ‘behind’ the ‘cyclist’ in that case.
Such a great success it was, that operators have been told to remove them.
Told by thick cyclist lobby supporters who are obviously not bright enough to understand either rule 167 of the highway code or the fact that a truck can’t stay back from something that’s behind it. 
El Deano:
My daughter has just given me a great idea. Instead of getting us lower down/bigger windows to see the cyclists.Give all cyclists in London a penny farthing, thereby putting them at the same height as all the trucks, we can see them, they can see us. Problem solved
That’ll work.What could possibly go wrong.
chester:
Maybe you should all have applied your elequent use of grammar and punctuation on warning stickers on the back of LGVs
Instead of the industry having egg on their face and now have to remove the badly worded order, and comply with a more agreeable one.
They cannot make any haulier remove said stickers. Only FORS are enforcing that but they work on behalf of cyclists anyway. Any haulier not FORS registered can stick what they like on the back of the trucks and tell the cyclists exactly what they can do.
There is a distinct lack of self preservation instinct in a certain number of vulnerable road users these days. I would group them with the kids who went to take storm selfies a couple of years ago and never came back because they didn’t realise the sea doesn’t give a ■■■■ about their instagram and will just drown them regardless, and various other idiots who seem to think their own sense of self importance will protect them from forces that far outweigh their own. 80kg vs 44t, its a no brainer. Pretty hard to claim compensation when your brains are spread halfway from london to manchester…
is chester an hgv driver,or a driver of some sort,doesn’t sound like it,sounds like another idiot cyclist coming on here to bleat about the big nasty hgvs,bit like roaduser66
I don’t see how questioning my profession would detract from my original post?
I could be a butcher maybe or even a baker!
Although LGVs would still be in towns and city’s being driven by drivers who can’t see any thing or anyone around them.
chester:
I don’t see how questioning my profession would detract from my original post?
I could be a butcher maybe or even a baker!
Although LGVs would still be in towns and city’s being driven by drivers who can’t see any thing or anyone around them.
No one cares anymore
Let it go man
The-Snowman:
No one cares anymore
Let it go man
Truckman020 posed a question so I was obliged to reply.
What made you think you were so important to get involved?